Huw Edwards

[Aquarius1234]

To think he shouldn't have been paid in full while off long term. As its more like being self employed.
But mainly cos it was 475k upwards of our TV licence money!
Another example is when a famous radio presenter s decide to go off for an extended break to film another show or something. Surely they don't get normal pay when they have extra weeks off not on air!!

Wow, I’m amazed that nobody has picked this up and it looks like your are correct.

In the UK the age of consent for sexual intercourse is 16. However, it is an offence to make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18, even if the content was created with the consent of that young person. The law is contained in Section 1 Protection of Children Act 1978.

Yea they can't probably without loads of effort.
He was just answering the questions.
Can't believe how casual the BBC director was about it. Basically he wasn't on air so we just paid him till he finally finally!! Resigned..

I think the age and image sharing was The Sun's angle at the time- I think the boy refusing to give evidence was a factor- although I know other young people who've shared images with a consensual under 18 year old partner have ended up on the sex offenders register, so the ' no criminality' assertion seems strange.

young men under 18

children/boys not men

There was probably complaints about that ten years ago but the BBC hate getting rid of or changing to another presenter instead. Bizzare they love to keep to the same well known name for as long as possible even with scandal or various complaints.

That’s pure conjecture on your part. The amount of fiction on this thread is mind blowing. Isn’t it bad enough without making stuff up?

I wonder how the Queen would have felt knowing her death was going to be announced by someone that invited young men into his hotel room the night before Prince philips funeral. Forgetting the rest .

It's all true no doubt.

What’s all true? The stuff you’ve just made up?

From my extension watching the BBC the last 30 years. How they deal the high profile presenters.

Yes! Thank for the correction, bit of lazy typingon my part

On one thread that was zapped (because he hadn't admitted anything at that point) that point was made and it was a revelation to me as well! I don't think many realise this is the law and just think if sixteen years old's can have physical sex, they can also consent to the whole hog so to speak, sending provocative selfies etc.

You do it then.

What a narrow-minded point of view.

WTF has done that? Literally fucking nobody!!!

Try to contribute like a grown up. I'm not employed by the bbc, plenty are and reading an autocue or the much applauded discussing the Queen’s death does not seem to be the stuff of rocket science.

As an aside I can't believe he was only 62. He looked a decade older. That's what a life of deceit and depravity do to you i presume. I wonder why he didn't get his bags done he seemed such a vein man going by the GQ thing.

Oh calm down and rtft.

Seconded to that pp

Exactly. Nobody has done that but nothing except full on lynch mob is acceptable to some people.

That's the angle I've been looking at it from, but didn't word it as succinctly as you. He's tainted all of those occasions. Any time footage is replayed, either his mug is all over it, or they're going to have to heavily edit it.

Re the 17 year old - I don't know if the BBC were still investigating that when he resigned? Something must have prompted the resignation. I'm pretty sure if someone in my organisation was accused of this behaviour, they would be sacked for bringing it into disrepute. In fact people have been sacked for less.

I think it was more to do with pathetic statements such as:
“It's such a shame and so disappointing that such a skilled presenter - and he was good! - would let this base side of himself take over and destroy everything that was positive in his life.“

His skill as a presenter is totally irrelevant.

Such a shame and so disappointing - are phrases you would say to someone cheated on an exam and let themselves down not someone who had videos of child rape.

His base side suggests that he was a good person that had a flawed side to his personality. Again, this minimises the true impact of his crimes on the children in the videos.

Yes this, well said

He was a skilled presenter who was effing good at his job.

I don't think his conviction and disgrace change that when we look back.

His conviction does indeed change that in that it makes his fabulous presenting skills utterly irrelevant.

As a pp said all offenders manage to have lovely home lives and spiffing jobs but when we find out what they really are it negates it all. Well it should except for with his most ardent cheerleaders on here.

I have read the full thread and I am perfectly calm. Some of you are foaming at the mouths trying to outdo yourselves with condemnation. You remind me of the mobs in the French revolution. Insults won't work on me. I don't care.

You keep bleating on about how easy a job newsreading is. Ever think why these people are paid such vast salaries? Are you familiar with the concept of supply and demand?

Someone upthread (think it might have been you) said that a pervert is all he is. No, it's not. Nobody is all one thing. He's got through 62 years successfully until now, so he must have had other things going for him. He still has those qualities whatever they are/were. The perverted side of him that willingly accepted images of child sexual abuse is one part of him. Anyone that thinks otherwise has a very limited understanding of people.